He mocks the people who proposes that the government shall protect the rich that they in turn may care for the laboring poor. -- Grover Cleveland

By: Scott Olsen

"Free flashlight" the man in the booth at the medical convention said. I
stood there pondering the irony in his words when he repeated "Free
flashlight; would you like a free flashlight?" "Oh, thanks," I answered,
snapping out of my daze as I took the blue keyring-sized flashlight.
"Great for trying to find things in the dark" the man continued, "And
here's a pamphlet on our malpractice insurance rates". As I left the
booth, I wondered what the man would have thought if he had known he had
given a flashlight to the father of a now-blind 5-year-old malpractice
victim.

On February 29, 1992, during an outing in the mountains, Steven did what
two-year-olds are prone to do: He tumbled to the ground and came up with
a twig lodged between his upper lip and gums. Steven was admitted into
San Diego's Children's Hospital to have his wound cleaned and stitched.
A week later, Steven began developing fevers and headache. After two
consecutive days of doctor visits, Steven was readmitted into the
hospital. The admitting resident diagnosed his condition correctly--
brain abscess--but failed to verify it with a CT scan (which my wife
asked her and two others to do). Steven was discharged with a diagnosis
of viral meningitis. The morning after his release, he was readmitted by
paramedics, unconscious and in serious condition. Steven was finally
discharged more than four months later with severe brain damage.

Five prominent doctors willingly participated in our lawsuit against our
HMO and the state hospital that supplied the admitting resident. The
HMO settled out of court. The state decided to take their chances in
court, and lost, but ultimately avoided paying for the full impact of
their negligence. This occurred because of California's ill-conceived
and little-known Malpractice Injury and Compensation Reform Act (MICRA).
This law places a $250,000 award cap for pain and suffering. In our
case, the jury said the damage to my son was severe enough to be worth 7
million. In essence, this law gave the negligent party a 6.75 million
break. This "one-size-fits-all" cap, enacted in 1975, has never been
adjusted for inflation. By their nature, caps hit hardest at the most
severely injured and children, who must endure pain for a potentially
longer lifetime. True, his "economic" damages are covered, but this is
merely money to keep his damaged body alive. Economic damages do not
address in any way, shape or form the loss that he suffers in the
quality of his life. If the damage caps are supposed to reflect the
value that society places on the quality of life, the measure of that
quality is about $4,000 a year, if my son lives to be 60.

Since it has been proven that malpractice costs are less than one
percent of all medical costs, why aren't doctors held liable for all
damages caused by him/her, just as a plumber, truck driver, or lawyer?
No one doubts that the great majority of doctors perform their jobs with
the utmost skill and care. These doctors have nothing to fear from
medical malpractice. Importantly, it takes a doctor to testify that
another doctor is negligent.

The argument for caps on pain and suffering and for proposed caps on
punitive damages is that consumers will have to pay higher costs because
insurance companies and doctors have to pay more for appropriate
insurance coverage. In reality, corporations (doctors are corporations),
want to limit their financial exposure. Caps give them a stable and
lower cost of doing business. Consumers, like Steven, who become victims
of malpractice, bear the cost of this sweetheart deal.

It is obvious to me that behind the rhetoric about the cost and
availability of insurance is a brazen attempt to limit the power of our
jury system. Under the doctor-sponsored MICRA law, the judge was
prohibited from telling our jury that there was a cap on pain and
suffering. The doctor and insurance company mantra for juries is to see
no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, and most importantly, be prevented
from awarding monies to curtail or prevent an evil.

Doctors and their insurance companies never admit the real victims of
their calls for "tort reform" are regular people like you and me.
Instead, they cloud the issue by saying they are trying to defend
themselves against the "greedy" trial lawyers. In my case, nobody took
me seriously until I hired a lawyer. My son was denied daily out-patient
therapy at a special school until our lawyer stepped in. We were denied
hospital records until they were demanded by our lawyer.

The so-called "tort reform" juggernaut is bearing down on our state and
federal governments. The 20-year experience of screwing California
medical victims has ignited a call for national medical caps and a state
proposal to extend caps to punitive damages. Consumers must let their
representatives know that we will hold them accountable for a vote
against victims and for negligent doctors, insurance companies, and
faulty product manufacturers. We will not support legislation that
blinds juries from applying justice to the unique facts and situations
of each case; that which limits the liability of negligent doctors and
manufacturers such as those who make silicone breast implants, Dalkon
Shields, Pintos, and DES.

My son Steven has no use for a free flashlight. But perhaps through my
son's peril, a light will be shed on this reckless lawmaking. Steven
cannot see the light, but through our efforts and yours, his light of
truth will be turned on.

-----
Brought to you by - The 'Lectric Law Library
The Net's Finest Legal Resource For Legal Pros & Laypeople Alike.
http://www.lectlaw.com

* * * * * * * * * *No one connected with the 'Lectric Law Library, including Sponsors, Advertisers, & Content Providers,
necessarily Endorses, Warrants or Approves of any of its material. Also, Library content is NOT meant
to provide Specific Legal Advice, or to Solicit or Establish Any Kind of Professional-Client Relationship.